Paul does something very interesting in quoting the poet Aratus. He re-interprets, or should I say re-contextualises [to place (as a literary or artistic work) in a different context]. He seems to be ignoring the fact the poem is about Zeus and extolling the deity, nay false god, full on. It's like he is replacing the name Zeus with the name Jesus in his mind, and making out this is an OK thing to do. In v 29 we have the turning point: 'being then children of God' and it's a recontextualisation.
Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring... (Phaenomena 1-5).
I would link this passage with what Paul says in Romans 1:'the pagans are without excuse because of the things that have been made...' He says that people suppress the truth - 'that which is known about God is evident within them.'
Sur[e]ly mission is about uncovering this truth no[w] it is no longer suppress[ed]? Wouldn't that entirely change the way we approach evangelism?
Sarah, all I can say is 'Pow, Bam' (I'm talking about the effect on me, reading it). It's a phenomenal quote, and quite possibly an answer to something I've been praying about on and off for the last little bit with a friend, which is about the value of the study of history. Thanks for helping clear away some barnacles.
I'm not sure I agree, however, that the truth is no longer being suppressed! (If that is what you were saying)
2 comments:
Sorry, Gordon, I know you are busy with other things, but I just couldn't resist to comment on this post. Sarah's thesis that Paul re-contextualises Aratos gets strong support from the (in my view) most important book on the Areopagus speech (Bertil Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, Uppsala 1955). Gärtner's main thesis is that Paul borrowed words and phrases from pagan writers, but the meaning he gives to them is completely different from that of their original context.
Those who defend the idea that the speech is Pauline (although the wording probably is Luke's) also see strong links between Acts 17 and Romans 1.
(For the historian there is also an interesting parallel between Aratos' l. 2: "For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus" and Acts 17,16 "the city was full of idols". Might be worth writing an article on that parallel and dedicate it to Sarah Fordham - if she doesn't want to write the article herself....)
Alex
Sur[e]ly mission is about uncovering this truth no[w] it is no longer suppress[ed]? Wouldn't that entirely change the way we approach evangelism?
Sorry I think some typos of mine made this statement a bit confusing...
The idea that people 'suppress the truth' helps me with mission because it means that it's not about hitting them over the head with 'truth' that is totally external to them.
I would love to write an article as suggested but I reckon it may take me a year or so! I have some notes on a talk I did around the subject I can make available if anyone is interested.
Just one other fact related to this that fascinates me: the word 'poeima' appears 2x in the NT [Gr. poiema, anything made, a poem, from poiein, to make] - Romans 1 - 'the pagans are without excuse because the things that have been MADE'; and Eph 2, 10 we are His WORKMANSHIP, sometimes translated MASTERPIECE. So, God has written 2 poems - His original creation, and the new humanity, the redeemed of God, and both communicate His existence. The way Paul often leads people in a progression about God being Creator, Sustainer and Judge - and brings in Jesus at a certain point, I have often pondered on. History is very important, and I would say, so is a study of the difference between primitive religion, the world religions and true spiritual religion (found only in Christ). Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to air these areas of deep interest to me.
Post a Comment